aiqbench analysis
This paper establishes a rigorous framework for "test-time scaling," distinguishing between diverse inference algorithms that extend model deliberation versus simple sampling aggregation. By formalizing these methods into three structural regimes and introducing standardized evaluation profiles, the authors address critical reproducibility issues in reasoning LLMs where compute budgets are often misreported or compared incomparably. The release of over 2 billion reasoning traces further enables systematic benchmarking across broad knowledge, symbolic reasoning, and competition mathematics domains.
Test-Time Scaling in Reasoning LLMs: Inference Regimes, Evaluation, and Reproducibility
arXiv:2608.04001v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models can solve substantially harder reasoning problems with more inference-time compute. The term "test-time scaling," however, now covers diverse inference algorithms that extend deliberation along a single trajectory, sample completed candidates and aggregate them through voting or verification, or search over unfinished partial states. These algorithms differ in their statistical structure, compute accounting, and failure modes. Treating these procedures as interchangeable under a single scalar "budget," or reporting accuracy without the inference protocol that produced it, makes results difficult to compare across studies. We develop a systematic account of test-time scaling along three axes. First, we formalize test-time scaling as budgeted inference over the implicit prefix tree of an autoregressive model and distinguish three structural regimes: single-trajectory sequential scaling, leaf-level scaling with terminal reduction, and prefix-level scaling. Second, we treat the evaluated object as the entire inference system and develop evaluation principles that separate end-to-end system performance from candidate-bank diagnostics. We introduce an evaluation profile whose coordinates and simple functionals recover or bound common repeated-sampling metrics, and prescribe protocol-matched reporting of compute and uncertainty. Third, we specify reproducibility requirements for inference protocols, distinguishing exact replay from distributional reproducibility and identifying the artifacts needed to support each. We also organize the open-weight reasoning ecosystem by model-side and interface mechanisms, apply these principles to broad-knowledge, symbolic-reasoning, and competition-mathematics benchmarks, and assemble over 2 billion full reasoning traces for release with progressively richer verifier and token-level signals.
Abstract:Large language models can solve substantially harder reasoning problems with more inference-time compute. The term "test-time scaling," however, now covers diverse inference algorithms that extend deliberation along a single trajectory, sample completed candidates and aggregate them through voting or verification, or search over unfinished partial states. These algorithms differ in their statistical structure, compute accounting, and failure modes. Treating these procedures as interchangeable under a single scalar "budget," or reporting accuracy without the inference protocol that produced it, makes results difficult to compare across studies. We develop a systematic account of test-time scaling along three axes. First, we formalize test-time scaling as budgeted inference over the implicit prefix tree of an autoregressive model and distinguish three structural regimes: single-trajectory sequential scaling, leaf-level scaling with terminal reduction, and prefix-level scaling. Second, we treat the evaluated object as the entire inference system and develop evaluation principles that separate end-to-end system performance from candidate-bank diagnostics. We introduce an evaluation profile whose coordinates and simple functionals recover or bound common repeated-sampling metrics, and prescribe protocol-matched reporting of compute and uncertainty. Third, we specify reproducibility requirements for inference protocols, distinguishing exact replay from distributional reproducibility and identifying the artifacts needed to support each. We also organize the open-weight reasoning ecosystem by model-side and interface mechanisms, apply these principles to broad-knowledge, symbolic-reasoning, and competition-mathematics benchmarks, and assemble over 2 billion full reasoning traces for release with progressively richer verifier and token-level signals.
Machine Learning (cs.LG); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)
arXiv:2608.04001 [cs.LG]
(or arXiv:2608.04001v1 [cs.LG] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2608.04001 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 333 words
Related coverage

Research Note: Filtering Subversion-Relevant Information From Pretraining Data Is Feasible
LessWrong · Oct 5, 2026

[AINews] Here are 6 Clones of Jev in 2 days
Latent Space · Sep 19, 2026
Productionizing TurboQuant on AMD GPUs for KV-Cache-Bound LLM Inference
AMD · Jun 11, 2026

Humanity’s Last Invention — Richard Socher of Recursive
Latent Space · Sep 14, 2026